Adjust Font Size

Relief from Eviction

ACTO is arguing that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider whether the tenant might be granted relief from eviction. Specifically, it will be argued that the ORHT erred by failing to consider the issue of discretionary relief from eviction, particularly in view of the merit of the tenant's claim, that the tenant was a single mother, and the serious consequences of an eviction to the tenant, namely, the loss of subsidized housing. Secondly, the Tribunal erred by failing to consider the issue of mandatory relief from eviction under s. 84(2)(a) despite the ORHT's determination of the landlord's breach of its responsibilities under the TPA. Thirdly, the ORHT erred by failing to provide the tenant with her statutory right to have the opportunity to void the eviction order by paying the amounts owed in accordance with the TPA.

Prior to the hearing, the tenant had vacated the rental unit to permit the landlord to effect repairs and renovations. Subsequently, the landlord determined that the cost to effect the repairs was prohibitive and discontinued the rental unit. In addition, the arrears of rent were paid by a third party. The tenant also filed an application to the ORHT on the grounds that the landlord acted in bad faith in serving the tenant with notice to vacate in order to effect repairs. The application was to be heard on December 14, 2005. Also, the landlord filed a motion seeking to dismiss the appeal as moot. The appeal was heard on November 30, 2005.

The Court concluded that a determination of the issues on the motion and appeal could prejudice the position of the tenant at the upcoming ORHT hearing, while delay of the matters before them would not prejudice them. On its own motion, the Court adjourned the motion, and the appeal sine die, pending the outcome of the ORHT hearing. The tenant later withdrew the application to the ORHT. If not settled, the appeal will be heard on June 13, 2006 at Divisional Court in Ottawa.

ACTO has filed an appeal to the Divisional Court of an order of the ORHT terminating the tenancy for arrears of rent. The tenant disputed the application of the social housing landlord for arrears of rent and, furthermore, filed a counter application for an abatement of rent and compensation for damaged property. The ORHT found substantial merit in the tenant's abatement claim that the landlord had interfered with the tenant's reasonable enjoyment of the premises and set off the majority of the arrears claimed. Despite the divided success, the ORHT nevertheless ordered that the tenant be evicted for the balance of arrears of rent owed.